Lego Humvee with instructions

While you’ve been occupied with the discussion on crediting building techniques, Tyler (Legohaulic) has once again been making instructions for a model that I’m sure many would want to build, and they’re FREE. What a riot.

Andrew: Though I don’t object to Nannan blogging this, I have to admit that I’m very uncomfortable with the first photo in the pair above. We’ve had some productive discussions about modern military LEGO in the past, but perhaps it’s time to revisit that discussion in a future editorial.

76 comments on “Lego Humvee with instructions

  1. Andrew

    …though not at all nice to see such a callous depiction of a brutal, ongoing war. This is undoubtedly the best LEGO Humvee I’ve seen, but I passed up this LEGO creation because I’m deeply uncomfortable with that first photo.

    Putting on my Editor-in-Chief hat for a moment, I’ve added a note to the post accordingly.

  2. Catsy

    You know, I’m not sure what it says that I didn’t even notice that at first.

    But that really is, bar none, the best Lego Humvee I’ve seen.

  3. Thanel

    Yeah, that first pic is still a little too raw/current for me. It’s why I’m usually reluctant to feature military stuff, though it’d be hypocritical of me to claim some hard & fast rule since I just blogged a tank yesterday. Fantastic Humvee though, with lots of playability.

  4. Catsy

    With that said, I think where I come down is in full support of both blogging such a fantastic build, and the editorial disclaimer that comes with it.

    I understand from the comments/notes on Flickr that nothing racist or inflammatory was meant by it–it was just another in a line of Lego military vehicles crushing the “opposition” for display purposes–but given current and past events (Abu Ghraib is invoked, appropriately, in the Flickr comments) it’s in somewhat poor taste.

  5. joemerchant

    I hadn’t noticed it either. model looks great – plus instructions.

    As it relates to the top photo and Andrew’s discussion, what about all the stormtroopers and pirates that have been destroyed, dismembered, and generally featured in “pieces?” Yet they are obviously not representations of any current events. I could debated it from either point of view as I do want to honor LEGO’s stand on military stuff. of course BrickArms is really cool even though it’s not endorsed by LEGO and LEGO did issue the toy story army figures, pirates (cannons) and other stuff.

    I’m putting my head in a clothes dryer and maybe this will all make sense when I pull it out.

  6. Catsy

    It’s a terrorist, they’d want to do the same to you.

    Which, while true, has nothing to do with the question of whether or not the image was appropriate to make–or blog. Unless we intend to set the practices of fanatic murderers as the standard for our own conduct. That’s not exactly a high bar to set.

    If you guys don’t like it, don’t look at it, plain and simple.

    This sort of statement is not helpful. It is also a cop-out: an abdication of any responsibility for one’s own choices by shifting the whole of the responsibility to the person observing the consequences of those choices.

    Actions have consequences. The act of creation has consequences both for the creator and the audience; the act of publicizing said creation has further consequences. These consequences are not necessarily bad, but they do exist. Statements along the lines of “if you don’t like it, don’t look at it” are, in essence, a statement that you don’t care about those consequences or those affected by them.

    If you’re comfortable with that mindset, it’s your call, but it does cost you a bit of respect in my eyes.

  7. Robo-Knight

    I didn’t mean it that way, but it just seems like alot of good things in general are being ruined for everyone because of a few people that don’t like it.

    Like the recent IPhone App Recall.

  8. Thanel

    I fundamentally take issue with the assumption that this minifug is a terrorist. That was my first thought when I saw this (and I have not doubt it was Tyler’s intent), but I realized on further reflection that it’s because of my own perceptions. Nothing makes that minifig a terrorist. It’s a minifig being run over by a humvee, our prejudice makes him a terrorist. Does being run over by American military hardware make a person a terrorist?

    @ Robo-Knight: It’s kinda my blog, I cant’ help but look at it. Sorry dude. Also, what Catsy said.

  9. Yeow

    @ Thanel, it’s pretty much being implied that it is a terrorist. I’d say the head scarf would be a giveaway to that.

  10. Thanel

    ^ The head gear tells me he’s a ninja. Yes, I know the terrorism is pretty clearly implied and Tyler has said that’s what he intended. But it says something pretty messed up that everybody–including me–is so quick to assume it’s a terrorist just cause it’s getting run over by a humvee. That’s why I’m uncomfortable with this. It plays into too many of our prejudices.

  11. Starwars4J

    Um, thinking that it’s a terrorist is in no way, shape, or form prejudiced. If that same fig was just standing on a sidewalk minding his own business and we all screamed “TERRORIST!”, however this fig is being run over, quite apparently intentionally, by a military vehicle. The US military has shown an extraordinary amount of compassion and friendliness in trying to win over local people in an effort to make removal of the terrorist organizations run as smoothly as possible. I hardly think running over innocent civilians, and then stopping to pose by them, falls in line with what we’ve seen.

    This is clearly a terrorist, as indicated by the creator of the work. Moreover there is absolutely no reason to think that, in the context of this work, the fig in the head wrap is anything BUT a terrorist. And I think we can all agree if that is the case, there’s nothing wrong with it.

    Beautiful MOC, wonderful instructions and generosity in making them. Let’s not tarnish that with this apparent need to make something of nothing.

  12. Robo-Knight

    Sorry about that, didn’t mean to get off topic, it’s been a bad day. :/

    Anyway though, great work on the moc, inverting the 2×2 cylinder plate and using it as a hub cap is something that I never would’ve thought of.

    That and the fact that you managed to get realistic working doors into a mini-figure scale moc really shows that you can cram alot of small detail into a small moc.

    Keep up the great work!

  13. Bram

    The only thing i’ve got to say is that LEGO shouldn’t produce army-sets and that fans can do what ever they want …
    It’s up to the “owners” of this Blog wheter they allow it or not to post this kind of pictures on this Blog.

    I don’t mind, but I can understand you want to stay neutral in this kind of things (politics, religion, etc… )

  14. wunztwice

    And I seem to remember the general fan community banning together to support Brickarms when they came ‘under fire’ (pun intended, I guess) for their bandit figs…

    Fantastic instructions for an incredible MOC none-the-less, which is why this was featured here.

  15. JeffStembel

    I understand it was meant to be lighthearted, but this really is indicative of a greater problem, namely the association of Muslims with terrorism and vice versa. The depiction of a dead person in a sort-of Muslim-like garb with the implication they’re a terrorist is racist (since it is a very negative racial stereotype). For another example, see the media’s aversion to labeling the guy who flew a plane into an IRS building in Texas a terrorist (as one person said, it’s “not Terrorism with a capital T”).

    To be clear, I am *not* saying Tyler is a racist, but this kind of thing shows how we need to be careful with our depictions.

  16. gambort

    ^ Can’t speak for anyone else but I defended their right to be distatesful but not the figure itself or the (IMO) blatant lie about what it really depicted.

  17. Bunbrick

    “The US military has shown an extraordinary amount of compassion and friendliness in trying to win over local people”

    *cough* Abu Graib *cough* Guantanamo Bay *cough* Bagram *cough* could I have a glass off *cough* water *cough* boarding *cough* please?

    “I hardly think running over innocent civilians, and then stopping to pose by them, falls in line with what we’ve seen.”

    *cough* Abu Gr- oh ffs… just keep watching Fox News.

    “Moreover there is absolutely no reason to think that, in the context of this work, the fig in the head wrap is anything BUT a terrorist.”

    *cough* sand… *cough* storm! *cough* need to *cough* cover my *cough* lungs and *cough* head *cough* inside, before *sounds of unfortunate traffic accident!*

    Despite what the above might seem to imply, I like the MOC and i don’t take huge personal offense with the scene depicted, but i agree it definitely warrants some thorough headscratching.
    However, I do feel plenty bothered by the ignorance it has already brought out both here and on Flickr. Makes you wish MOCs of class-rooms were perceived as equally ‘cool’ as anything pewpew.

  18. leggo my lego

    I think what bothers me is that the guy under the wheel is unarmed. If he had an RPG or something and the soldiers were mounted up, I think I would have just passed over it as a battle scene.

  19. thwaak

    Context. Get some.

    Actually, let me find it for you: The claims that the image promotes racism or is racist is just stupid and/or misinformed. It has nothing to do with race and everything to do with *cultural* stereo-types which in turn are based on fact. Whether or not the man (woman?) being run over has anything to do with being a civilian or a terrorist is irrelevant – a large segment of the middle-east population (and apparently elsewhere around the world now) do in fact dress that way.

    Unless we can prove that the intent was to depict a person being run over *because of his race or culture*….I think the opinions and outrage are more indicative of persons own bias and predjudices than that of the creator of this MOC. Until we have proof to the contrary, Tyler was being callous with his depiction of violence and nothing more.

  20. Brad

    To Andrew, and the rest of The Brothers Brick:

    This is your blog and you can and should feel free to showcase what you will. I think the image of what is supposed to be a Middle Eastern terrorist crushed under the wheel of a military vehicle while the soldier smiles and gives a thumbs up is sufficiently controversial that only a few would really chide you for shying away from it.

    If you want to write an editorial on what you feel is appropriate for TBB, that’s certainly your call. If you feel you owe readers an explanation or if you have a lot of readers asking why you didn’t write anything about ‘X’, maybe that’s necessary. On the other hand, perhaps only an internal conversation is better? All of your readers have opinions, but this isn’t our site and having our input might just muddy what you want to do.

  21. worker201

    The driver seems really pleased with himself, and that’s kinda creepy. Reminds me of those You-Tube videos where the soldiers we wish didn’t exist use dogs as target practice and throw smoke grenades at unsuspecting villagers.

  22. thwaak

    Let me also add that like everything else, images have one, maybe two, literal meanings, but the symbolic meanings, interpretations, and relationships can be countless and are entirely dependent on the person doing the viewing.

    Tyler has explained his literal meaning….as for everyone else…they are seeing what they want, or are conditioned, to see.

  23. marnicq_

    First I want to appologise for my bad English, since English isn’t my first language.
    And as for second I want to bring up my opinion about the first picture of the two – the one where the Arabian minifig gets killed without any reason.
    Obviously we see that the minifigs in beige are American soldiers and the man getting killed is an Arabian or at least is meant to be; looking at the pictures we can’t find any reason why the Arabian man is getting killed by the Americans, no weapons, no threatening actions, nothing.
    So why is the guy killed, as for the comments I’ve already read here he would be – according to some – a ‘terrorist’; yet again we can’t find any proves that he is, so why do you people say this then?
    This is because of the stereotypical image we’ve got from the Arabians and Arabian world since the medieval times (beginning with the Crusades) – as is told in the Orientalist theories of Edward Saïd. Yet in these days this type of stereotypical image gets spread by another way than in the medieval times (when they used paintings), in modern times like these Hollywood films spread these images, from early Hollywood films to the current Hollywood films which make Arabians pretty much always look like terrorists, this is where this image comes from – these have been described in the work of Jack Shaheen which has even been made a movie of ‘Reel Bad Arabs’ if I’m not mistaken.
    (For the record even the Disney film ‘Aladdin’ had a fairly racist/stereotypical image of the Arabians, as I quote from the intro-song “where they cut off your ear, if they don’t like your face; it’s barbaric, but hey it’s home.”)
    Nowadays there is also the possibility next to paintings/artwork and movies to spread this stereotypical image through the internet and I do not believe that a Lego Blog, like the Brothers Brick is the place to spread this stereotypical (racist) images of Arabians. Certainly since it’s read worldwide, it’s not like there are only conservatives and racists (or fascists) reading this blog, all kinds of people interested in Lego do read this blog.
    If you do find the MOC worthy to blog, please make sure there isn’t any political content in the picture which can be taken offensive by anyone; if there is, please do cut it out of the picture, by example Nannan (as he was the one who blogged this item) could’ve simply cut off the upper apart in some photo-editting software, just leaving the second picture or could’ve asked the creator of this MOC to send the picture without the Arabian minifig getting misstreated.

    I do certainly hope my message gets read and that you bloggers do keep account of this opinion in the future (also fitting this opinion to other political opinions to make this a fairly apolitical, just Lego blogging site; it’s not that I don’t believe in free speech and your own personal choice of what you want to believe in, but there are different blogs for these kind of things).

    PS for the record I’m from Belgium and I usually speak Dutch, being the reason for my crappy English. (If something wasn’t clear or so, please do ask me to re-explain it.)

  24. Brad

    If one assumes that is supposed to be a minifig civilian, I don’t really see that it makes the photo any less offensive or disturbing. Either the photo shows a military force happily slaughtering civilians or it shows them gruesomely murdering an unarmed enemy.

    Further, assuming that the figure in a LEGO ninja headpiece is a terrorist or a combatant does not make someone a racist – it is one of two interpretive possibilities. Assuming that this photo has nothing to do with military action in Iraq and Afghanistan would be ignoring the context.

  25. marnicq_

    @ Brad: if that comment was a reply on my comment; I was pretty much saying that the attacked person was just ‘killed’ by the creator of this MOC because of his origins. Seeing that he hasn’t done anything wrong, for as far as we can see in these pictures (he has no weapons, . This would make the creator of this MOC racist, whether it’d be concious racism or subconcious racism (this isn’t meant as any offence, political views get stigmatised in our subconciousness).
    Further as it’d probably refer to the war that the US is currently fighting, this is a political view which doesn’t belong on a blog which posts Lego creations.

  26. Andrew

    @marnicq_: While I think I share with you the political perspective that underlies many of your statements, I’m also going to disagree strongly that politics has no place in LEGO or on this blog. As I’ve said before, The Brothers Brick has a long history of posting politically charged LEGO creations:

    LEGO is art, and art is full of politics and social commentary. As the Editor-in-Chief of this site, I can say with certainty that we won’t stop blogging politically oriented LEGO creations.

  27. Brad

    @ marnicq_:

    Actually, I was replying to thwaak and Thanel’s comments. I started writing my comment sometime before you started yours, and I finished after you posted yours. So, I didn’t see your comment until after I had posted.

    On further thought, I think your point (and Thanel’s and thwaak’s) has merit. I still don’t think that people who assumed ‘terrorist’ are racists – I think the picture supports that interpretation. However, I do agree that the picture plays on a racist stereotype that depicts a certain type of person as the ‘enemy’, and that this is a problem.

  28. Fred

    Good guys wear white hats. Bad guys wear black hats. Unless you all start replacing Minifigs with 2×4 transparent blocks, we’re all going to personify these objects with some sort of story that either agrees or disagrees with our unique personal value system.

    I submit that no matter who is under the tire, what the make of the vehicle is, what the minifig is wearing: someone will get a little emotional about something.

    And therefore, the creation is a success. You might not like it. You might love it. Doesn’t matter.

    It’s what art does.

  29. GrosHumainSale

    I think that it is not the fact that this picture is political, it is the fact that this picture is encouraging one side of a very controversial war. Replace the “bad terrorist” with a Nazi, and no one will say a word…

  30. JeffStembel


    Running over an unarmed Nazi would be just as bad.

    That aside, a Nazi in that context would be a uniformed soldier. The guy in the above picture is neither uniformed nor a soldier.

    And I wouldn’t even say it is encouraging one side of the war so much as feeding into the stereotype that either they’re all terrorists over there, or since we killed him, he must be a terrorist. Neither is close to the truth.

  31. jaredrankin

    (Just to state in advanced, the comments were a little tl;dr, so I really just skimmed them)

    But, all I have to say is that, there will never stop being things that offend you, because everyone has the right to choose what to be offended by. If you’re offended by this, that’s just you. Ignore it and leave. But if you choose to state your opinion, big deal. You aren’t changing anyone’s opinions by complaining. Either crop the picture or leave it be. No sense in bitching about it.

  32. NTXCoog

    For everyone to assume that the minifig under the wheel has no weapon because one is not displayed is as silly as saying that because he appears Arab he must be a terrorist.

    IF the minifig was a terrorist and was hit by the Humvee, the 1st thing the soldier would do would be to inspect for a weapon and remove and/or dispose of the weapon. If the minifig wasn’t dead and only injured, any weapon not removed could still be utilized.

    2nd just because there is not an obvious weapon, there could be a hidden weapon. Underwear bomber anyone? Suicide bombers generally don’t carry their weapons for all to see.

    There could be multiple interpretations of this. Maybe it is an attack on an unarmed civilian. Maybe it is a heroic act by a soldier saving dozens of lives from a terrorist. Based on the other military models in his flickr account and saying he was a WWII buff, I’m going to assume the latter.

  33. Brad

    @ jaredrankin:

    If we do not talk and argue about issues (and some of these have been hot topics on TBB before), if we do not follow through with our arguments, and if we ignore the weight of our words, thoughts, and creations, I think we’re left the poorer for it.

    Yeah, I know that sounds all stupidly Picard of me, but I mean it. Argument is important. I think we do well to talk about these things. It isn’t (just) ‘bitching’.

  34. Starwars4J

    Seeing that he hasn’t done anything wrong, for as far as we can see in these pictures (he has no weapons, . This would make the creator of this MOC racist, whether it’d be concious racism or subconcious racism

    I’m sorry, did you see something I didn’t? He didn’t do anything wrong? How do you know this exactly? This is a photograph, not a video. Using the logic of going by a photograph, the fleshie minifig standing in the uniform also did nothing wrong. He’s just standing there. Maybe he’s shouting “Oh my god, how terrible!”, maybe he’s wondering who ran this poor innocent arab over.

    But we know that isn’t the case. The fig is a soldier, and he ran over a terrorist. That’s all there is to it, now stop trying to play that stupid “racism” card, it has no place here. Tyler is not a racist by building this, and I don’t appreciate your comments that he is. Your comments are far more racist than his MOC ever could be.

    Now please everyone, can we get back to the awesome MOC rather than trying to invent some problem?

  35. dshaddix

    Props to Nannan for blogging this one, nice word dude!

    Second of all, its human nature to make stereotypes and make initial judgments based on appearances and personal experiences. I know that the REAL story here is that this Humvee was in need of assistance and a friendly ninja came to help, but there was a terrible accident. That smile is actually a wince, so its all chill guys.

  36. Shuppiluliumas

    The primary issue I have with the image is its context. If, as others have said, it was obvious that the fig was an armed soldier, that would help. Even more for me, though, is the scene as a whole. If this were part of a vignette or scene realistically depicting a battle, and a fig had been run over, I would have less of a problem. As it stands, the first thing that pops into my head is that I’m looking at an image of the humvee on a rotating platform at an auto show with some guy crushed under it, while the driver smiles and describes its capabilities. Also the smiling soldier torture pictures we’ve seen far too much of over the last 8 years, of course. That said, I’m not trying to take away from the awesomeness of the creation. It is very well done.

  37. Will Will

    Something struck me as strange here, and it’s not the picture of a terrorist under a Humvee wheel. It’s clever. I didn’t even give it a second glance. I just thought “Awesome! … and instructions, too? Awesome! Thanks!”.

    What IS a little strange to me is the fact that this issue needed to be brought to light publicly. In my opinion, you could have just edited the photo, and had a nice private/quiet conversation between the two of you, and come to a decision.

    … this is like getting invited to dinner at a friend’s house, and watching their parents have a huge argument… AWKWARD!

  38. Andrew

    ^ Since several people have suggested it, I’m going to address the question about editing out the portion of Tyler’s photo that might prove objectionable, sensational, offensive, or whatever.

    We never censor how a builder chooses to present their LEGO creation. Again, I personally passed this over because I felt uncomfortable with what I was seeing in the photo (and Tyler has since clarified that what I was seeing was not intended), but the creation itself was worth blogging, and Nannan chose to go ahead and do so.

    There’s no disagreement between the “parents” here that’s being aired in public.

  39. Creative Anarchy

    @Andrew – If your’e concerned about my delicate sensibilities count on me not to be offended by the presentation of any extrordinary build. If this humvee were driving down a literal road of terrorists/Ninjas I’d scarcely notice. It in fact took me a third look to figure out what was so offensive. I was so blown away by the scale and detail of the model I didn’t even see what was under the tire. Having tried my hand at building a Humvee a few times I have to say I’m floored by this construction. And thanks for the instruction’s Tyler, my gaming group owes you.

  40. greenglo

    I wrote a lot of words but I can sum it up as this:

    If every time you saw Uncle-Sam he was under a Humvee, being killed, never winning, and always a bad guy.

    You as a firm believer in Uncle-Sam-ism would probably feel rather downtrodden, defeated, angry and sad. This is what racism is like for those on the receiving end, phrased in a way to reach the largest group of readers on this blog.

    The key idea is thinking what this might mean to other people. This is always the hardest thing, it is easier to dismiss something as having no meaning when the images greatest message is not for you.

    Take from this what you can, it’s still a great Humvee :) – Greenglo

  41. Starwars4J

    Yes, I feel terrible for all those terrorists who might feel bad about people not liking them. This isn’t showing a muslim getting run over, but a terrorist specifically (and obviously). You need to understand this. There’s a very good reason they’re always depicted as the bad guys, so again, please stop making this offensive when it’s not, k? :)

  42. Bunbrick

    Nobody is saying you need to feel terrible for terrorists. Nobody is saying terrorists feel bad about people not liking them. Judging by the reactions it is in fact clearly NOT obvious that the depicted figure is by definition a terrorist.

    Furthermore, the main controversy isn’t that a supposed muslim or supposed terrorist is getting run over, but instead with the perceived ‘reaction’ (be it rightly or wrongly perceived) given by the driver to the fact that there’s a guy of debatable status being crushed under his frontwheel, and the unfortunate parralels one is able to draw between this behaviour and other notorious ‘good guy behaviour’ during the War on Terror.

    We all understand -that-.

    I’m afraid you fail to grasp that the core of this discussion isn’t about -who- is right or wrong in this conflict, who is good or bad, who is winning or losing… it’s about what kind of -behaviour- during a conflict is right or wrong, where ‘violence for good’ stops and ‘violence for bad’ starts, that human rights don’t stop counting even when you paint your opponents out to be animals, nor even when your opponents -act- as animals, and finally about what sort of standards we should rightfully keep ourselves to, even in dealing with proven ‘bad guys’, because else in the end we’ll have become no hair better than them.


    Now i’m sorry if you feel bad that your friend’s MOC brought out this sort of discussion; but oh well, I say. Oh fucking well. Because it’s a topic in and of itself, seperated from the MOC, that warrants discussion, and I for one am very grateful to see that TBB is willing to provide the room for that, even despite the sensitivities and annoyances that inherently come with the subject matter.
    If it makes you feel better though, i’ll gladly tell you that i haven’t for a second assumed the MOC-creator to be a racist, an arab-hater, or whathaveyounot, nor having had bad intentions, at most a slight lack of properly appraising sensitivities about an extremely controversial and still continuing conflict. I’ve enjoyed his works in the past, and i most certainly intend to enjoy them in the future too.

    But i’m also enjoying this discussion.

  43. skippy_magoo

    Woah, I totally missed the point of this picture. I thought the ninja mechanic was fixing the axle and the soldier is calling for help because the jack collapsed.

  44. marnicq_

    @ Andrew: Most of the examplary pictures you’ve shown to show us that there are more political lego creations being blogged on TBB are i.m.o. not so very political actually.

    I’ll give you an example:
    In this one a politician has been portrayed, yet no political view is stated; it’s a fairly neutral position taken in by the creator.
    This one just portrays a ‘fact’, in many countries like over here in Belgium you’re allowed to marry someone of the same sex.

    Yet you’ve also given some pictures with a political statement, but rather not offensive:
    This one is just a ‘Lego-ised’ picture of a picture that has some critics on the government that was running the US by then. I don’t think anyone is actually offended by this one?
    These pictures bring out an anti-war/anti-violence statement, something we should all be believing in … There is no one getting offended here, at least not for as far I can see. Yet it might not be very nice to view for the kids who also watch this blog.

    I just hope that you bloggers of TBB take in account that things that offend people in a rather political way shouldn’t belong in this blog. For, as I said before, this is a blog read world wide and all kinds of people are reading it.

  45. Thanel

    Don’t get me wrong, I’m not a fan of terrorism, and hope that the US manages some level of success in Iraq and Afghanistan, but I’m tired of equating anybody who fights the US with terrorists. If the specific people who are fighting the US use methods that are intended to cause mass civilian casualties in order to foster terror, that’s terrorism.

    Laying an IED, sniping, firing an RPG, setting up and ambush, having running street battles and whatnot aimed at uniformed US/NATO soldiers, though something I’m not a fan of because I have friends who are or have been in the US military, are not necessarily terrorism. We have words for those kinds of people or that kind of behavior. Let’s use the most accurate words. Guerrilla. Insurgent. Rebel. Taliban. It’s sheer verbal and intellectual laziness to lump everyone we don’t like as terrorists.

    Plus, terrorists don’t look like that guy under the humvee. They look like everyone else until they go boom.

  46. Catsy

    Whether or not it’s a terrorist is beside the point. The point is that the image depicts an unarmed person being intentionally crushed beneath the wheel of a military vehicle. I don’t care if it’s Charles Manson or Dick Cheney, civilized human beings don’t do that.

    It’s not about who they are and what they do, it’s about who we are and what we do.

    I think what makes this more volatile than brutality in, say, post-apoc or Star Wars or WWII scenes is the immediate, present-day relevance. Historical scenes are in the past, and the others are fiction with no connection to any present-day circumstances in the real world. There are still soldiers deep in the suck right now and horrible things like this actually do occur–and whether you like it or not, the issue of war crimes in the ongoing conflicts is a very real one.

    Regardless of how one feels about terrorism, asymmetrical warfare or the current conflicts, no one should act surprised that this image provokes a strong reaction. Pretending otherwise is either disingenuous or a failure of imagination.

  47. Magnus

    Re: Catsy and Thanels recent posts – WORD.

    I’m not personally comfortable with building my own MOCs representing the current wars in the ME, but also I think anyone who thinks some level of action in their MOCs if fun should be a little wary of casting the first stone.

    The Humvee is nicely done, and considering how often we get asked to provide instructions, it’s nice whenever someone actually does it.

    The depiction of the Humvee on top of the terrorist/insurgent/freedom figher is IMHO somewhat tasteless and insensitive, but it isn’t something I lose a great deal of sleep about. The builder of the MOC has been quite ready to discuss it calmly and intelligently. This is one of those things we can choose to be offended by or not – and either POV is fine, so long as you respect those who feel differently.

  48. Catsy

    ^ I should probably make it clear that I don’t think the builder meant anything bad by it, and I’m not piling on him here.

  49. BrickArms

    I, for one, am proud of the humvee driver for ridding the city of the zombie menace.

    Oh, you mean I’m the *only* one that considered the “victim” could have been a zombie? ;)

  50. wunztwice

    Ha, good on ya Will!

    Besides, I suppose anyone out there could always *build* a monument to this fig, if they felt so inclined…

    (Remember, building?)

  51. Andrew

    @marnicq_: Your response simply confirms that you agree with the political perspectives and world view implied in my previous examples. Rest assured there were many conservative Americans who felt very, very differently. If I’m reading you correctly, you’re saying, “I have no problems with politically charged LEGO that’s liberal/progressive, but I’m deeply offended and disagree with the very existence of LEGO creations that aren’t.” As much as I seem to agree with your politics, I cannot agree with the restrictions you seem to be placing on those who happen to disagree with you.

    @BrickArms: LOL!

    (I’m staying out of the main debate because Catsy & Thanel are doing a fine job.)

  52. jvm64

    back to basics.. This is a legoblog after all…

    just build two of them. Sorry to admit but… it’s great fun! Every one should try it. Keeps people of the street or whatever environment fighting…

    Thanks, Legohaulic for the instructions!

  53. Daedalus

    I’m puzzled how there’s so much debate over whether or not the fig in question is a terrorist, when it’s –right there– in the Flickr description:
    “suspension so that troops don’t get whiplash when running over pesky terrorists. :)”

    Any claim of racism or anti-Islamism is ridiculous. The caption doesn’t read “pesky Muslim” or “pesky Middle Eastern Civilian” or worse.
    —> “pesky terrorist.” <—
    If people are upset because this MOC depicts a terrorist being run over, okay. I don't think it's worth getting upset over, but okay. Diverse viewpoints are a good thing. I'm flat out embarrassed that people are bringing racism into this discussion at all.
    Maybe we should all agree to only include blank, gray, accessory-less minifigs in all future MOCs so that no one mistakes our intentions.

    BTW, awesome design and great instructions. Controversy aside, I'm glad they're getting attention.

  54. Daedalus

    PS. I’m all for a second scene depicting the now pesky zombie getting shotgunned and/or chainsawed. Good call, Brickarms.

  55. joemerchant

    Yet no one mentioned the fact that GM just announced they are closing down the hummer / humvee line because the deal to sell that line to another corporation has fallen through.

  56. The Ranger of Awesomeness

    The whole thing=TL;DR.

    @BrickArms – Hahaha! Too true. That explains the second photo, they must’ve been unloading cricket bats from the trunk. ;)

    What cracks me up is how many people seem to be taking this the wrong way. This is what my thoughts are: Any resemblance to the Abu Ghraib photos was intended as an off-color, satirical joke. The figure in question was used as a prop, to demonstrate the suspension. The ‘terrorist’ was placed there to mock the “Stomp-em-down!” philosophy that has been associated with certain US operations in the middle east, and not as a message of “Hey, isn’t it awesome that he’s laughing at the guy who got run over?” More like “Run ’em down!”

    I just find it hilarious that people are reading so far into this. As has been said, if someone posted a photo of the same scene, but with GI Joes (or space police and aliens, or knights and trolls, etc) there would be no such discussion. The issue here is that current politics are involved, but I don’t see why people need to get so worked up about it.

    Maybe it’s just that my generation has been desensitized to ABS violence, but I don’t flinch at the sight of a minifig getting run over by a Lego car. ;)

  57. Andrew

    @The Ranger of Awesomeness: It seems mutually exclusive to say both “tl;dr” and to generalize the responses of “many people”. Either you read the thread and you’re responding, in which case “tl;dr” was a lie, or you truly didn’t read the thread and therefore have no right to make such generalizations. Which is it?

  58. The Ranger of Awesomeness

    Andrew, you’re right. That wasn’t really the most well thought out phraseology to use; I read a good chunk of the comments as they stood at about 11 this morning. And I skimmed most of the other ones about half an hour ago. So tl;dr was only partially true. But mostly a device to say “All o’ y’all are thinkin’ ’bout this too much” without all the apostrophes. ;)

  59. GrosHumainSale

    I think Catsy and Bunbrick really illustrated this well : It’s not about the human being run over, its about the soldier being happy with the result. Its about the fact that this photo show a human being happy with the suffering and death of another one. You wouldn’t digest a U.S. troop under the humvee… its the same thing for others points of view.

  60. Magnus

    Yeah, it isn’t the fact that a minifig is being run over, it’s the significance of who this particular fig represents, and the idea that this makes it all the more humorous. Obviously if the Hummer was driving over a Stormtrooper or over Joe Vig there woudn’t be the same reaction – but that would be a different picture with a different message.

    I can understand that some people who don’t care about this stuff think a big deal is being made of nothing, but this is clearly something that lots of other people do care about. If you don’t care about it, it shouldn’t bother you that does matter to other people. I mean, I don’t care about sports, but I don’t go around telling everyone who does that they are wasting their time getting worked up about some activity where people throw and kick a bag of air around a field. “Live and let live” works both ways.

  61. Andrew

    @Ranger: I figured it was a device, but I take issue with the intent of that device. You were being dismissive of others’ opinions, and that’s a lack of respect I’d prefer you not make a habit.

  62. The Ranger of Awesomeness

    @Andrew: For clarity’s sake, it wasn’t -at all- my intent to be dismissive of anyone’s opinions, or be disrespectful, but I can see how it came across that way. Basically, my point was, I don’t think it was meant as more than an off-color joke. And to me the whole thing wasn’t that thought-provoking, but maybe I’m used to a different portrayal of Lego (or realistic for that matter) violence. Thanks for making me aware of my tone.

    I apologize to anyone who mistook my post for anything other than an opinion, and as a discounting of other opinions. Carry on. :)

    Also – I like the new addition to the header. ;)

  63. Cole Blaq

    Who is a terrorist? The person being labelled or the person who labels.
    Those who control the media and the images are the people at the buttons.

  64. Thanel

    I think the “you’re thinking too much” argument is exactly why I’m uncomfortable with this sort of portrayal. Too many people have an initial prejudiced thought and don’t think beyond it to analyze whether it matches reality or if it’s a harmful bias that can play out negatively in real life. I found *myself* making assumptions without needing to read Tyler’s explanation that it was a pesky terrorist, that troubled me and made me think of all the people I know wont’ put a second thought into it and this will just reinforce their dehumanizing attitude toward other people.

    This humvee really is fantastic and it’s awesome that Tyler made instructions for everyone. I’ve also been really impressed with the way he’s handled the furor over it. With class, rather than getting all resentful toward people like me who get our PC knickers in a twist.

Comments are closed.